"Traditional" Mendicant Male Orders?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But what if a community was started in which it was agreed they would use the EF exclusive? It seems there are more communities adopting the EF as their norm from their beginnings, is there something that makes this impossible for mendicants?
Yes. Church law prohibits the foundation of new orders. Today, one can split off a branch of an existing order, such as the different branches of the Franciscans and Augustinians, but not found a new order. You can start a new congregation, new secular institute, new society of apostolic life, but not a new order. Mendicants are orders.
Say hypothetically the OP and I get together and form a community of beggars and we decide to use the EF. Then there would be no disunity because every joining the community would have the understanding of our liturgical norms.
You can have such a community, but it would not be an order. It would be a congregation or an institute of consecrated life.

All this being said, a group can agree to make the EF its norm. This is allowed by SP. What a group cannot do is prohibit the OF.

This means that if an individual wants to celebrate the OF outside of the community mass, he has the right to do so. He cannot impose it on the community as the community mass, because the constitutions would say that the community mass is to be the Tridentine form. This is the case of a community that begins with this intent.

The question about the mendicants is slightly different. None of were founded with the Tridentine mass in mind. All of us predate the Tridentine mass. By the time that the Tridentine mass was promulgated, we were already several hundred years old. It could not be imposed on us and never was. This what many Traditionalists don’t understand about the Mendicants. Every community of mendicants has always had its own missal, breviary, lectionary, rubrics and liturgical calendar.

If you visit a parish run by Franciscans on October 4, be prepared to a solemn mass with all the bells and whistles, because it’s the Solemnity of St. Francis. If the mass is the EF, it will be a high mass. If it’s the OF, it will be a solemn mass. In either case, it will be very much like an Easter or Christmas mass. This is not on the calendar of any other community. The same is true for the Dominicans on the Solemnity of St. Dominic, the Carmelites on the Solemnity of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, etc.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
+J.M.J.
That is not true. The priests of the FSSP are forbidden (and would never want to) say the Novus Ordo.
This is always debated on this forum. The priests are not forbidden, because technically, they cannot be, but I agree that you’d be hard-pressed to find any of them who want to celebrate the Ordinary Form. It is my understanding that any FSSP priest who wants to celebrate the OF along with the EF, eventually leaves the Fraternity.

Although some do attend the Chrism mass as a sign of “solidarity”, some don’t.
 
This is always debated on this forum. The priests are not forbidden, because technically, they cannot be, but I agree that you’d be hard-pressed to find any of them who want to celebrate the Ordinary Form. Anyone who wants to do that eventually leaves the Fraternity.

Although some do attend the Chrism mass as a sign of “solidarity”, some don’t.
You are absolutely correct. They are not forbidden. Canon Law would not allow this. As an Ecclesia Dei institute they can state in their constitution that their norm is the EF. There is nothing illegal about that. The it becomes a case of “Buyer beware,” meaning that anyone who wants to enter the Society understands that the EF is their normal form of liturgy. You can’t say that you’re surprised.

People always confuse the individual’s choice not to do something with a prohibition.

Proper Law can only prohibit what is extraordinary. For example, any religious order, congregation, secular institute, secular order or society of apostolic life can ban the EF, but not the OF. The Holy Father deliberately used the term “Forma Extraordinaria” to protect priests from being expected to celebrate the Tridentine form.

If an FSSP priest wants to celebrate the OF, he may do so. However, it’s not the ordinary mass of the Society and not one that they normally celebrate in public, with few exceptions.

Currently, there is a discussion as to whether the bishop can command them to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass. This was brought to the attention of the bishops by the major superior of male religious. Regular priests who serve a diocese and are on the payroll of the diocese, either through a parish or another ministry are expected to concelebrate at that mass. It’s part of their job description. In some dioceses, religious superiors have raised the question why the FSSP gets paid by the diocese and is exempt from the Chrism Mass, when they are not consecrated men, but secular.

I suspect that until there is a ruling from the Signatura in Rome, the decision will be made by the individual dioceses.

There are two possible solutions.
  1. Any priest who is assigned to a diocese and is on its payroll must concelebrate at the Chrism Mass as an expression of their communion with the bishop.
or
  1. Only diocesan priests must concelebrate, priests who belong to a institute of consecrated life or a society are exempt from this obligation.
If a diocese goes with the first option, then it’s up to the institute to choose to enter the diocese. They can do what religious do. Many religious communities do not enter certain dioceses, because the expectations are in conflict with their charism or because they don’t have a individual who wants to work under certain expectations laid out by a diocese.

As to leaving the FSSP, that’s easier said than done. A priest cannot leave a society of apostolic life unless he has a diocese that is willing to accept him or is entering the religious life. If he’s joining a diocese, this is a horizontal move. He remains a secular Catholic, but is incardinated into a diocese instead of a society. If he enters a religious community, it’s a vertical move. He’s leaving the secular world to become a consecrated religious. If he does not make it to perpetual vows, he must return to the Society or find a diocese that will take him.

Going in the other direction is never allowed. A priest who belongs to a religious order may never leave the consecrated life to enter a society of apostolic life. In theology this is a step downward. You can step up, but not down. You cannot go from being a priest who is a consecrated religious to a priest who is a secular Catholic in a priestly society. You’re losing something. You’re going from the world of the sacred to the world of the mundane.

It’s very complicated law, because the theology is complex. Law is based on theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Currently, there is a discussion as to whether the bishop can command them to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass. This was brought to the attention of the bishops by the major superior of male religious. Regular priests who serve a diocese and are on the payroll of the diocese, either through a parish or another ministry are expected to concelebrate at that mass. It’s part of their job description. In some dioceses, religious superiors have raised the question why the FSSP gets paid by the diocese and is exempt from the Chrism Mass, when they are not consecrated men, but secular.
Interesting. Why would religious care about whether the FSSP attend the Chrism mass or not?
 
Interesting. Why would religious care about whether the FSSP attend the Chrism mass or not?
Because some bishops insist that any religious who works in his diocese and is paid by the diocese must concelebrate at the Chrism Mass.

Father X is an FSSP priest. He is still a secular Catholic.

Father N is a Dominican. He is a consecrated Catholic.

The Right of Exemption is only for consecrated men and women, not for secular men and women. This is a doctrine of Trent…

It’s a matter of keeping the lines between the consecrated life and the societies of apostolic life very clear. We have to remember that Societies of Apostolic Life are new. These were created by Bl. John Paul II in 1983. The Church is still working out the kinks.

These things usually take about 300 years to get sorted out. It took that long to get the friars and the monks straightened out, then another 300 to clear up the differences between religious orders and religious congregations. Rules and laws are written as we go along and come across different situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Because some bishops insist that any religious who works in his diocese and is paid by the diocese must concelebrate at the Chrism Mass.
Ah…that makes sense.
It’s a matter of keeping the lines between the consecrated life and the societies of apostolic life very clear. We have to remember that Societies of Apostolic Life are new. These were created by Bl. John Paul II in 1983. The Church is still working out the kinks.
What’s interesting about the FSSP too is that they “live in community”. I know that is not the same as religious living in community and they are never to be confused with religious, and I’m not sure if this is a written part of their constitutions, but they don’t live alone. They usually live at least with one other priest and sometimes two. They say some of the Office together.
 
What’s interesting about the FSSP too is that they “live in community”. I know that is not the same as religious living in community and they are never to be confused with religious, and I’m not sure if this is a written part of their constitutions, but they don’t live alone. They usually live at least with one other priest and sometimes two. They say some of the Office together.
That is what makes them a societies of apostolic life, that is a group of secular men living together in a community like the religious, without being a religious.
 
Ah…that makes sense.
This causes canonical questions from religious superiors in a diocese to the diocesan bishop. Until the kinks are worked out, there are going to be questions. A question that I’ve always had is whether a society of apostolic life have the same freedom over the administration of a parish as does a religious order or are there difference? So far, no one whom I’ve asked seems to know the answer, because there is no law in the canons. We know that religious have a lot of freedom over their parishes. The major superior of a religious community of men has the same authority as a bishop. When they sit to negotiate a take over of a parish, the superior will lay out for the bishop what the community needs and what it can do. The bishop lays out what he needs and wants. From there, they go forward. Until the bishop guarantees that the community will have its autonomy and the community guarantees that it will run the parish responsibly, there is no deal.

Since a society of apostolic life is secular by nature, except for the brothers who are canonically religious, there is a new creature here. It’s a community made up of secular and religious. What the parameters are is everyone’s guess. I believe that at the moment it’s probably negotiated diocese by diocese.
What’s interesting about the FSSP too is that they “live in community”. I know that is not the same as religious living in community and they are never to be confused with religious, and I’m not sure if this is a written part of their constitutions, but they don’t live alone. They usually live at least with one other priest and sometimes two. They say some of the Office together.
One need not be religious to live in community. Many societies of apostolic life have many elements of religious life in their constitution, so do many secular institutes. Secular institutes and societies of apostolic life can even make vows and still remain secular. Their vows are simple vows and are considered private, even if they make then at a stadium. They don’t absolve as do solemn vows, which are an extension of Baptism. Simple vows also do not bind the person to the Church, only to the institute. The institute can release the person.

To keep things even simpler, many societies of apostolic life follow all of the practices of religious, but their bond to the society is through a promise to observe its constitutions. This way, if they sin against chastity (for example), they are culpable of sinning against the virtue, like any other Catholic. They are not guilty of violating a vow. If a religious sins against chastity, he sins against the virtue and he sins against the covenant that he made when he made vows. He vowed never to violated that virtue.

Institutes like the FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians, Daughters of Charity, Sisters of Schoenstatt, Society of Our Lady of the Trinity (SOLT), not the other ones, ICRSS have many elements of religious life. There are two things that they cannot have or they would be an order. They cannot have a canonical novitiate. Only orders have that, even secular orders. They do not have poverty. They have what is called “a common table”. This allows them share as much as they want to share, but they can change those statutes at a general chapter, whereas religious cannot change their statutes without the permission and review of the Holy See.

It’s all quite interesting. Some of it does affect the laity. For example, if you live in a parish that has been handed over to the administration of the FSSP, you don’t have a voice in the matter and you cannot demand that it operate like a parish run by diocesan priests.

If you are part of a parish run by mendicants, you have no choice. You must accommodate to their way of celebrating the mass and their liturgical calendar. They have a right to impose the spirituality of their order on their parish. By that, I mean that when you walk into a Franciscan parish, it’s going to have that Franciscan flavor to it. It’s going to be very informal. The church will be as simple as possible given the architecture and age, etc. You will probably not know which friar is a priest and which is not until mass starts, unless you know them from before. If you walk into the parish office and ask to speak to someone, you may not get a priest, but you will certainly get a friar. Remembering that all priests in the mendicant orders are friars, but not all friars are priests. Unless you say that you want to go to confession, you will see the friar that is available and who is on the parish staff. Not all are on the staff. The boundaries between the priest and the laity are almost non-existent. The focus is on the boundaries between the religious and the laity. This blows people’s mind.

The point is that a parish or a ministry is going to have the flavor of the group that runs it. That’s to be expected. If the FSSP has strong community life, their parish probably has to accommodate to that. It would make sense that they don’t schedule parish functions at prayer time, meal time or recreation time or that they do not welcome callers during those times unless it’s an emergency. That’s all part of the flavor. People get used to that. After a while, some people even adopt these practices in their homes.

It’s pretty cool stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
This causes canonical questions from religious superiors in a diocese to the diocesan bishop. Until the kinks are worked out, there are going to be questions. A question that I’ve always had is whether a society of apostolic life have the same freedom over the administration of a parish as does a religious order or are there difference? So far, no one whom I’ve asked seems to know the answer, because there is no law in the canons. We know that religious have a lot of freedom over their parishes. The major superior of a religious community of men has the same authority as a bishop. When they sit to negotiate a take over of a parish, the superior will lay out for the bishop what the community needs and what it can do. The bishop lays out what he needs and wants. From there, they go forward. Until the bishop guarantees that the community will have its autonomy and the community guarantees that it will run the parish responsibly, there is no deal.

Since a society of apostolic life is secular by nature, except for the brothers who are canonically religious, there is a new creature here. It’s a community made up of secular and religious. What the parameters are is everyone’s guess. I believe that at the moment it’s probably negotiated diocese by diocese.

One need not be religious to live in community. Many societies of apostolic life have many elements of religious life in their constitution, so do many secular institutes. Secular institutes and societies of apostolic life can even make vows and still remain secular. Their vows are simple vows and are considered private, even if they make then at a stadium. They don’t absolve as do solemn vows, which are an extension of Baptism. Simple vows also do not bind the person to the Church, only to the institute. The institute can release the person.

To keep things even simpler, many societies of apostolic life follow all of the practices of religious, but their bond to the society is through a promise to observe its constitutions. This way, if they sin against chastity (for example), they are culpable of sinning against the virtue, like any other Catholic. They are not guilty of violating a vow. If a religious sins against chastity, he sins against the virtue and he sins against the covenant that he made when he made vows. He vowed never to violated that virtue.

Institutes like the FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians, Daughters of Charity, Sisters of Schoenstatt, Society of Our Lady of the Trinity (SOLT), not the other ones, ICRSS have many elements of religious life. There are two things that they cannot have or they would be an order. They cannot have a canonical novitiate. Only orders have that, even secular orders. They do not have poverty. They have what is called “a common table”. This allows them share as much as they want to share, but they can change those statutes at a general chapter, whereas religious cannot change their statutes without the permission and review of the Holy See.

It’s all quite interesting. Some of it does affect the laity. For example, if you live in a parish that has been handed over to the administration of the FSSP, you don’t have a voice in the matter and you cannot demand that it operate like a parish run by diocesan priests.

If you are part of a parish run by mendicants, you have no choice. You must accommodate to their way of celebrating the mass and their liturgical calendar. They have a right to impose the spirituality of their order on their parish. By that, I mean that when you walk into a Franciscan parish, it’s going to have that Franciscan flavor to it. It’s going to be very informal. The church will be as simple as possible given the architecture and age, etc. You will probably not know which friar is a priest and which is not until mass starts, unless you know them from before. If you walk into the parish office and ask to speak to someone, you may not get a priest, but you will certainly get a friar. Remembering that all priests in the mendicant orders are friars, but not all friars are priests. Unless you say that you want to go to confession, you will see the friar that is available and who is on the parish staff. Not all are on the staff. The boundaries between the priest and the laity are almost non-existent. The focus is on the boundaries between the religious and the laity. This blows people’s mind.

The point is that a parish or a ministry is going to have the flavor of the group that runs it. That’s to be expected. If the FSSP has strong community life, their parish probably has to accommodate to that. It would make sense that they don’t schedule parish functions at prayer time, meal time or recreation time or that they do not welcome callers during those times unless it’s an emergency. That’s all part of the flavor. People get used to that. After a while, some people even adopt these practices in their homes.

It’s pretty cool stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Very cool. Thanks. 🙂
 
Great Stuff Bro. JR et al. It’s always nice to hear from someone who has been through all that kind of stuff.

I would like to ask the OP why a mendicant order and why the insistence on the EF and the old breviary?
 
Great Stuff Bro. JR et al. It’s always nice to hear from someone who has been through all that kind of stuff.

I would like to ask the OP why a mendicant order
First, because I feel a strong attraction to the religious life in the mendicant tradition. It is a radical living out of the Gospels,
“Go and sell all you have.”,
“Carry neither food, nor sack, nor money…”,
“Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!”,

it parallels the life Our Lord chose to live, one of abjectness and poverty, it seems to be very penitential, it is a life of self-denial, prayer, and service to the poor.
and why the insistence on the EF and the old breviary?
It’s not so much an “insistence” as a request, but I have two reasons:

I have fallen in love with the EF. It is rich with the traditions of the Church and puts me in my place. It is done with reverence and those who celebrate it celebrate the OF reverently as well. Cardinal Burke explains my feelings well.

There is much abuse in the Church right now. “Traditionalist” societies are to blame on some level, for many preach sedevacantism or some other form of heresy, but also ordinary religious communities as well. Of the communities that I have seen the ones that celebrate the EF preach absolute fidelity to the pope and the magisterium, continuity with the pre-conciliar Church, and absolute, non-apologetic Catholicism, and carry out all these in action. The ones that don’t celebrate the EF have known abuses in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hold the EF and rich traditions of the Church in contempt, water down the Gospel, laxly observe their Rule’s, and fail to live radical self-denying lives. A usual community that celebrates the EF lives in the world, but not of the world. If God is calling me to live a radical life, I want to live a radical life and I would feel more confident of being able to do that in a community that celebrates the EF.
 
First, because I feel a strong attraction to the religious life in the mendicant tradition. It is a radical living out of the Gospels,
“Go and sell all you have.”,
“Carry neither food, nor sack, nor money…”,
“Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!”,

it parallels the life Our Lord chose to live, one of abjectness and poverty, it seems to be very penitential, it is a life of self-denial, prayer, and service to the poor.

It’s not so much an “insistence” as a request, but I have two reasons:

I have fallen in love with the EF. It is rich with the traditions of the Church and puts me in my place. It is done with reverence and those who celebrate it celebrate the OF reverently as well. Cardinal Burke explains my feelings well.

There is much abuse in the Church right now. “Traditionalist” societies are to blame on some level, for many preach sedevacantism or some other form of heresy, but also ordinary religious communities as well. Of the communities that I have seen the ones that celebrate the EF preach absolute fidelity to the pope and the magisterium, continuity with the pre-conciliar Church, and absolute, non-apologetic Catholicism, and carry out all these in action. The ones that don’t celebrate the EF have known abuses in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hold the EF and rich traditions of the Church in contempt, water down the Gospel, laxly observe their Rule’s, and fail to live radical self-denying lives. A usual community that celebrates the EF lives in the world, but not of the world. If God is calling me to live a radical life, I want to live a radical life and I would feel more confident of being able to do that in a community that celebrates the EF.
That’s an awful lot of generalization and certainly hasn’t been my experience with Benedictines, in particular those of the congregation the abbey I’m affiliated with, which are extremely orthodox and faithful.
 
First, because I feel a strong attraction to the religious life in the mendicant tradition. It is a radical living out of the Gospels,
“Go and sell all you have.”,
“Carry neither food, nor sack, nor money…”,
“Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!”,

it parallels the life Our Lord chose to live, one of abjectness and poverty, it seems to be very penitential, it is a life of self-denial, prayer, and service to the poor.

It’s not so much an “insistence” as a request, but I have two reasons:

I have fallen in love with the EF. It is rich with the traditions of the Church and puts me in my place. It is done with reverence and those who celebrate it celebrate the OF reverently as well. Cardinal Burke explains my feelings well.

There is much abuse in the Church right now. “Traditionalist” societies are to blame on some level, for many preach sedevacantism or some other form of heresy, but also ordinary religious communities as well. Of the communities that I have seen the ones that celebrate the EF preach absolute fidelity to the pope and the magisterium, continuity with the pre-conciliar Church, and absolute, non-apologetic Catholicism, and carry out all these in action. The ones that don’t celebrate the EF have known abuses in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hold the EF and rich traditions of the Church in contempt, water down the Gospel, laxly observe their Rule’s, and fail to live radical self-denying lives. A usual community that celebrates the EF lives in the world, but not of the world. If God is calling me to live a radical life, I want to live a radical life and I would feel more confident of being able to do that in a community that celebrates the EF.
That’s a big dose of ego, judgment or both. Someone once said, “Never judge another man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.”

What you see from the outside looking in, may not be what is actually happening. Also, you cannot tell a religious community how to live its rule, unless you know its rule, its constitution, its history and its rights and privileges. That’s a lot of information that most outsiders do not know. Fidelity to the Church, the faith and the papacy does not mean that a religious repeat everything that the catechism says verbatim. One of the great attributes of the mendicant tradition is scholarship, especially the Franciscans and Dominicans. You’re going to hear different points of views, difficult and challenging questions and even disagreements. These are not signs of infidelity. On the contrary, they are signs of great fidelity to their charism. Contemplating, studying, questioning and searching for the answers without the use of a catechism is a long and honored mendicant tradition that goes back to the 13th century.

The EF is not part of the mendicant tradition. It never was. The mendicant orders predate the Tridentine mass and were never bound to use it. It was always an option for them. Dominicans and Carmelites used their own rite. Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians and Augustinian friars never had their own rite, but did have a form of the mass that they had used long before the Tridentine form. They have always been allowed to modify the ordinary form to fit their needs and to reflect the culture of the community.

You’re also equating mendicant with service to the poor. That’s a faulty assumption. None of the mendicant orders were founded to serve the poor, not even the Franciscans. The first community founded to serve the poor was the Vincentian family in the 1600s. The Franciscans were founded to live the Gospel in obedience. The Servites were founded to serve the Blessed Mother. The Dominicans were founded to preach. The Carmelites were founded to be hermits. The Trinitarians were founded to rescue those in captivity (probably the closest to serving the poor).

You’re probably confusing the fact that the mendicants do not own anything. This is true. We do not. That does not mean that we do not have access to what we need for work, education, health, recreation, and formation. If I didn’t have access to a laptop, I wouldn’t be able to clarify this for you and for others. Many people would read your post and go away thinking that it’s true that the mendicants are not what they should be, not realizing what the founders had in mind and not realizing that if you stick the EF into the mendicant families, you’re inserting something foreign to them. In which case one is not faithful to one’s culture. The Tridentine mass is not part of the mendicant culture. Therefore, it’s an Extraordinary Form that the superiors and the chapter can choose to allow, prohibit or regulate.

Do mendicants serve the poor? Yes, especially the Franciscans. We don’t do it because we were founded to do so. That would be a lie to say so. We were commanded to be poor among the poor. Charity compels us to serve our neighbors. If our neighbors are the poor, guess what we do. But we were founded to be obedient, prayerful, fraternal and detached. The biggest and most difficult act of detachment is detaching from what one believes the life of the community should be and listening to one’s brothers.

All of us have an ideal image of the religious life. All of us have to give it up in order to be good religious. A good religious is not one who lives according to the ideal. The good religious is the one who lives with the reality before him, while persevering in perfect charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
While I applaud and encourage your faith and desire to serve I find several things problematic.

I’m not sure you quite understand the mendicant tradition. It is true, at least in the case of the Franciscans, which is what I know, that there was the edict to give all away before joining the Order it isn’t quite “abjectness.” Francis is much more concerned with money in his day. The Early Rule says that the brothers can take what ever they want for their work but no money. Money is 2 things in his day (and ours actually). First, it’s security and second it’s power. Francis is interested in neither of those things. What the early Franciscans figure out is their life is ascetic so there is very little need for asceticism beyond the life itself. Many of the “ascetic” stories are much later in the sources which brings me to point 2….

Those asceticism stories are put in the sources because the Franciscans aren’t living a life that is even close to what Francis did. This, ironically, is due to 2 major factors- First, the rapid expansion of the Order meant that begging was becoming impossible. Think about it- you have 400 friars, let’s say, in Assisi begging everyday. That’s going to get old for the town people quick. Second, and this is my favorite part, the influx of priests is a problem. To become a priest you need to study, to study you need books and libraries. To have books and libraries you need permanent places. Permanent places means the itinerancy and begging are out the window.

Francis sees his Order change before his eyes. It literally has become essentially what you see today, before he dies.

And while I am at it I want to address the “purity” of the Mass/order/church/papal fidelity. There is no such thing as “absolute fidelity” because that would require there to be no interpretation of anything and that is impossible. We, as humans, interpret by nature. Your desire to follow a “traditionalist” group is an interpretation of how you think the Church should be understood, at least by yourself and those you want to surround yourself with. Thomas and Bonaventure don’t always agree and they are both Doctors of the Church. (Aquinas, incidentally is the progressive of his day.)

This is also why I love the Franciscans that try to go back to “the way it was Francis was around” and follow the Rule absolutely. That would include such things as: the lay brothers not praying the Office (Chapter 3), Saying “peace to this house” whenever entering a house (chapt. 3), Not receiving any money (chapt 4 & 5), No preaching unless the Minister General has approved you (Chapt 9), ect. I could go on. And that is just the Rule. We haven’t started talking about other Franciscan writings. That is why Bro. JR, I think, points to the Rule, and constitutions and other sources. We have to interpret what is being said.

Absolute fidelity is a myth.

Bro. JR is also right that to impose the EF on, let’s say, the Franciscans is unfair as well. Aquinas argues against the immaculate conception. Should we hold him responsible for that since it was made dogma hundreds of years later?

And finally, it’s called the Extraordinary Form. I think we mistake the Extraordinary (like Super Mass) with Extra-ordinary (that is, not the norm.

Just some thoughts.

Fraternally,

Franciscanguy
 
This is also why I love the Franciscans that try to go back to “the way it was Francis was around” and follow the Rule absolutely. That would include such things as: the lay brothers not praying the Office (Chapter 3), Saying “peace to this house” whenever entering a house (chapt. 3), Not receiving any money (chapt 4 & 5), No preaching unless the Minister General has approved you (Chapt 9), ect. I could go on. And that is just the Rule. We haven’t started talking about other Franciscan writings.
Even here, there are certain things that you can never go back to. You have touched on one example, “lay brothers”. The term is no longer applicable today. These were men who were illiterate. Therefore, they could not use the breviary. They entered the order as friars, like any other friar. They were not lay brothers as one would find in a Dominican house, Benedictine monastery or Carthusian Charter House, whose vocation is to support the life and ministry to the priests by taking care of the material needs of the community.

These “lay brothers” were not auxiliary or coadjutor brothers. In some of the mendicant and monastic orders there were parallel vocations, the Fathers and the Brothers. That was never the case among the Franciscans. For example, Brother Leo was never anything other than one of the friars. He is one of the most important friars in Franciscan history, because he knew Francis more intimately than anyone else. He was the scribe, confidant, nurse, companion and friend.

Anthony of Padua was not a priest until three years before his death. He had been a religious for 15 or so years. No one ever speaks of him as a lay brother. Why not? Because he was a scripture scholar. He was literate. He died at 33.

When we go back, for example as my community has done, the Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Primitive Observance and others, we would never think of asking the non-clerical brothers not to pray the Breviary with the community. That would be unnecessary. Today, all of the friars can read. Many of the non-clerical friars are highly educated in theology and philosophy. Some teach theology, are superiors, formation directors, spiritual directors, retreat masters, parish administrators, technicians, or excel in many other skills. But they are not illiterate.

The early friars did not ride horses. Today, we drive cars. If we don’t own a car, we take a bus, train or hitch a ride. The horse is no longer a sign of status and wealth. Most people don’t own horses, but they do own cars, ride buses and trains. In our community, we have one car for four people to share. Obviously, someone is going to take the bus, unless everyone is going in the same direction.

You also mentioned priests as problematic and they have been, especially during that last 150 years. For this reason, the return to the roots has included pulling out of ministries that require priests, such as parishes. The focus has shifted back to the early focus. One enters the community to be a Son of St. Francis. If you want to be a priest, we refer you to the local diocesan vocation director. It does not mean that we don’t allow anyone to be ordained. It means that we go back to the early days when the priesthood was accidental to our way of life not essential. We create a way of life and work on apostolates that do not require Holy Orders: street ministry, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, pregnancy centers, hospice care, the disabled, the immigrant poor and so forth. The superior and the student friar discern if he has a vocation to the Franciscan life and if he has a vocation to the priesthood. They are discerned separately, as they were back in the early days.

On the other hand, Francis said that the friars had to work for a living. For most of us, work requires tools such as computers, gadgets necessary for fixing a car, office equipment, even special gadgets for the brother who cooks. We don’t ask the brother who cooks to start up a fire in the backyard when he can use a stove, oven and other kitchen appliances. Francis mind was that they be working men, not ineffective.

There are many things that we cannot go back to, because they are no longer necessary. We would be creating an artificial situation. There is nothing virtuous in that. There are other things that we can go back to. For example, in our community, I’m the superior. I’m not a priest. There are three priests in our community. I am the one who decides whether and when they can celebrate the EF or if they can preach or not preach. I decide whether they will help out at a parish on the weekend or spend Saturday afternoon with Mrs. Murphy who is in hospice and has no one to be with her as she waits to die. That’s going back to the early days. There is the spirit of obedience.

Even I have to be obedient as Francis was obedient. If the chapter says that I must do X and not do Z, then that is what I must do. I can’t negotiate my way out of it.

We go back to simplicity in dress. This is very interesting. Many people think that simplicity in dress means a habit. The truth is that a habit is a very simple garment. However, it’s not one that a poor man can afford. Unless you have someone in the community who can sew, you must have your habits made outside. We pay $250 for every habit, sometimes more. A shirt and a pair of docker pants are cheaper, if you go to a store like Target. We wear the habit because it’s an anchor to an 800 year old tradition. I always say that the cord on the habit ties us to St. Francis and to every Franciscan who has come before us and every one who will follow us. This includes the friars, nuns, sisters and seculars, the entire family. Francis founded a family, not an order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Wow. Was there a rule against that?
Yeah. Remember you need to read Latin to be able to pray the Office. So, thats the hang up most of the time. There was no Vatican II and no vernacular.

you can read the actual Rule of 1223 or what is called the Later Rule here. Ignore the top part because its pretty much wrong. (it is confirmed by that Bull) This is the Rule Franciscans profess. So, Bro. JR lives by this Rule. (you can probably read the whole thing in a few mins. its short, so its worth the quick read.)

Interesting experiment if you do: try not to think of the context (if you have any for it). Just read it as it is written as if I wrote it yesterday. How much of it can (or should) actually be followed in modern time?

Just an idea.

To Bro. JR’s point about work- this is the problem with the so called Spirituals. They don’t get that part. But that’s another rant 🙂
 
Yeah. Remember you need to read Latin to be able to pray the Office. So, thats the hang up most of the time. There was no Vatican II and no vernacular.

you can read the actual Rule of 1223 or what is called the Later Rule here. Ignore the top part because its pretty much wrong. (it is confirmed by that Bull) This is the Rule Franciscans profess. So, Bro. JR lives by this Rule. (you can probably read the whole thing in a few mins. its short, so its worth the quick read.)

Interesting experiment if you do: try not to think of the context (if you have any for it). Just read it as it is written as if I wrote it yesterday. How much of it can (or should) actually be followed in modern time?

Just an idea.

To Bro. JR’s point about work- this is the problem with the so called Spirituals. They don’t get that part. But that’s another rant 🙂
I like this translation better. This is a copy of the original kept in Assisi. It’s called the Regula Bullata. It’s the rule that Pope Honorius III sealed with a bull. A bull is not an actual seal. It’s a decree. In this case, Pope Honorius decreed that this was to be the rule of the Franciscan family and it could not be changed for any reason, under penalty of grave sin, unless it’s changed by another pope.

There are three rules sealed with a bull.
  1. The Rule of the Friars Minor (First Order Franciscans)
  2. Rule of St. Clare (Second Order Franciscans)
  3. Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penancy (Third Order Franciscans, secular and religious)
Most people don’t realize that Francis founded three orders and that he wrote three rules for the Friars Minor, but only the third one was decreed by the Holy See. He wrote an actual rule for the Third Order to be followed by religious and secular members of the Third Order. Pope Paul VI rewrote it in 1978, just a few months before he died. He also wrote a rule for Franciscan hermits, which was never sealed.

He was a busy little man. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
+J.M.J.
That is not true. The priests of the FSSP are forbidden (and would never want to) say the Novus Ordo. This issue came up a while ago when a few FSSP priests in France wanted to say both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo. They were expelled from the FSSP (I will not give the names.)
One cannot forbid what the Church allows, unless a) one is a religious community, b) the restriction is approved by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, c) there is a danger to the community’s charism

The constitution of the FSSP is very clear on its mission and it does not prohibit the celebration of the Ordinary Form. It takes a very positive approach. It stresses the importance of the Tridentine Form for the Church and the mission of the Society to keep it alive.

Constitution of the FSSP - Mission Statement
To the original poster:
You are looking for a Traditional Mendicant order ?
You should look into the Capuchins of Morgon, France. They are associated with the Society of Saint Pius X, and obviously you will get nothing but pure, undefiled Catholic Tradition (the true spirit of St Francis) and the '62 Missal and Divine Office.
The Capuchins of Morgon, France are not an order.

They are not part of the Capuchin order.

They are not part of the Franciscan family, because they never received canonical approval from a bishop or the Holy See.

Their members are out of communion with the General Minister of the Capuchin Franciscans, to whom every Capuchin Franciscan vows obedience.

The Last Will and Testament of St. Francis is very clear that the brothers owe obedience to Francis and to his canonically elected successors. The superiors of the Capuchins are Morgon were never canonically elected; therefore, they are not legitimate successors of St. Francis. You cannot have to Superiors General to one order. Nor can you have a house the is in schism with its order.

In addition, they do not practice traditional Franciscan life. Their model of Franciscan life is one that crept into Franciscanism during the late 18th and early 19th century.

For examples:

They maintain two kinds of friars, priests and brothers. The brothers are not allowed to go to school or exercise any ministry outside of the friary. There is a line of demarcation that places the ordained friars above the non-ordained friars. If Francis were to come back today, they would not allow him to govern his own order, because he was not a priest. That’s not in keeping with Franciscan tradition.

They disobey the Holy Father. The order is well known for its fidelity to the popes, so much so that for several hundred years, a Capuchin Franciscan has always been the official preacher of the papal household. The Rule is very clear. Christ speaks through the Church, specifically through the reigning pontiff.

They use the 1962 Missal and Breviary. This is not the traditional Franciscan missal and breviary. We have always had our own missal, breviary, lectionary and liturgical calendar. The missal and breviary that the Franciscans used until the liturgical reforms of the 1960s was the Seraphic Missal and the Seraphic Breviary and the liturgical calendar was known as the Franciscan Ordo. The Capuchin Franciscans at Morgon, use the Tridentine edition promulgated by Pope John XXIII. We never used that book. Our first transition away from the Seraphic Missal and Breviary was in 1967 to the Roman Missal and Roman Breviary. By 1970, we had our own edition of the missal and breviary called the Roman-Franciscan Missal and the Roman-Franciscan Breviary.

The Seraphic Missal and Breviary were abrogated by Pope Paul VI. Franciscans today, who wish to celebrate any other form, use the standard Extraordinary Form. This is not traditionally Franciscan. It is traditionally Catholic. It would be like saying that the Tridentine Form is traditionally Dominican. That’s not true either. They have their own rite.

One does not have to go to Morgon to find Franciscans who celebrate the Tridentine Form. The Franciscans of the Immaculate were given permission to celebrate it regularly. What you will not find in any Franciscan house is the traditional Seraphic mass. The books are no longer printed and the old copies that are around are kept like treasures in libraries. Good luck in getting a librarian to lend you one. You may have to cut off his hands to get it. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top